|   |  |
|--------|--|

| Environment | FHWA         > HEP >         Environment            |
|-------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

|    |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  | Site Map |
|--------------|--|--------|--|--------|--|--------|--|--------|--|--------|--|----------|
|              |

|  |  |
|--|--|

|    |
|--------------|
|              |  | National Environmental Streamlining InitiativesHighway and Transit Environmental Streamlining Progress Summary
**Report to Congress**

**February 2002**

**UNITED STATES****DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

This report toCongress is a summary of highway and transit environmental streamliningprogress. The Federal HighwayAdministration prepared the report in cooperation with the Federal TransitAdministration.

For more information contact:

U.S. Department of Transportation        Federal Highway Administration        Office of NEPA Facilitation        400 7th Street, SW, Room 3222        Washington, DC 20590        Telephone: (202) 366-2065        Facsimile: (202) 366-7660
**Highway and Transit Environmental Streamlining Progress Summary**Results
 Streamlining continues to be a priority for this administration. Many streamlining efforts are underway atheadquarters and throughout the field offices of Federal Highway Administration(FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and environmental review and permittingagencies. **Because environmental review is a multidisciplinary, interagencyprocess, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has been pursuingstreamlining through better coordination with project sponsors (usually stateor local governments) and with Federal resource agencies. We are seeing results across the board.**
- 50 states (100 percent) have adopted or initiated process/procedural related agreements or initiatives for streamlining that clarify, amend, or re-invent the project development process. At least 24 states (48 percent) have focused their process redesign efforts on integrating planning and National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) activities.
- 34 states (68 percent) have agreements that provide state and Federal environmental agency personnel for expediting reviews. 
- 29 states (58 percent) have adopted agreements to merge the FHWA NEPA process and the Clean Water Act permitting process administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This eliminates what can be a duplicative process.
- 41 states (82 percent) have some level of delegated authority for historic resources that allows many projects to be processed quickly, freeing up Federal and state resources to focus on complex issues.
- 22 states (44 percent) have initiated tribal consultation Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) that address new Historic Preservation Act consultation requirements in a streamlined fashion.
- 26 states (52 percent) have context sensitive design initiatives. 

Most of the direct and tangible results associated withstreamlining are realized at the project level. The results are a culminationof many overlapping and integrated efforts by the relevant FHWA/FTA Divisionand regional staff working with state Departments of Transportation (stateDOT), transit operators, Federal and state resource agencies, and Federalagency headquarters staff. 

From 1999 to 2001,the average length of time to process environmental documents for majorprojects has decreased approximately eight months (from five years and 10months to five years and two months); the median time decreased by one year(from five and a half years to four and a half years).

**Sources:**FHWA sponsored NEPA Baseline Study, January, 2001, by Louis Berger Group  for the 1970, 1980, 1990 decades: Average time is from project  initiation to signing of Final Environmental Impact Study.  FHWA records for the years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003: Average time is from the signing of the Notice of Intent to the signing  of the Record of Decision.
FHWA and FTAheadquarters support field efforts through technical assistance, informationsharing, guidance clarification, and best practices. **Coordination of nationalstrategies at headquarters results in more efficient and effective applicationof NEPA across the board by all of the Federal agencies.**

The DOT field officesplay a critical role in shaping the national agenda. They are instrumental in helping headquarters shape guidance,compile national performance measures, and assess the nature and extent ofsuspected problem areas. 
The ProcessBuilding Coalitions with Partners and Liaisons with Stakeholders
DOT seeks opportunitiesto expedite streamlining efforts among Federal agencies and encouragesinvolvement and input from transportation organizations such as **American Association of State HighwayTransportation Officials (AASHTO), the American Public Transportation Association,the Highway Users Alliance, and the American Road and Transportation BuildersAssociation,** environmental groups such as the **Environmental Council of States, the Surface Transportation PolicyProject, Environmental Defense, the Coalition to Defend NEPA**, andothers. Outreach to **tribal organizations and the NationalCouncil of Historic Preservation Officers** took place in 2001.
Interagency Streamlining Group Members- Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
- National Marine Fisheries Service
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
- U.S. Department of Transportation
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
- U.S. Forest Service
- White House Council on Environmental Quality

Some initiatives havebeen specific and directed, such as working with AASHTO on the development ofthe Center for Environmental Excellence. Others are less formal or occasional, such as participation indiscussions or presentations at association meetings, workshops, andpanels. One formal FHWA/FTA effort was theconvening of a series of Executive Leadership Forums to bring togetherexecutives from transportation and environment organizations in and outside ofgovernment to share perspectives and explore potential approaches. Having convened one session in 1999,additional Executive Leadership Forums are on the agenda for 2002. The firstsession held in 1999 led to an examination of the opportunities for delegationas documented in a recently completed National Cooperative Highway ResearchProgram (NCHRP) study, "Improving Processing of Documents and Quality ofEnvironmental Decision-making for Routine Transportation Projects." Documentation of selected state and Federalexperiences contributes to best practices and advances the efforts to expediteroutine projects. **Leadership and visibility among the highest-level Federal officialsinspire value-added solutions.**

**Building communication networks and information coalitionswith a full range of interested parties at all levels keeps our streamliningprocess open and iterative**. By relying on this approach, FHWA and FTAadvance solutions that have real value, meaning, and-most importantly-practicalapplication at the project level. **FHWA/FTA national efforts are strategic,further-reaching, and incremental.** If done well, these initiatives will come together in small butmeaningful ways at the project level. **The national efforts are designed toadvance our bottom line-the efficient program delivery of sound projects**.
Adopting a New Mindset
DOT believes streamliningis achieved by adhering to one of the central tenets of NEPA: ". . .to create and maintain conditions underwhich man and nature can exist in productive harmony" (Section 101(a), NEPA,1969). Reducing delays whilemaintaining environmental protection underlies the philosophy behind Section1309 of TEA-21 and is in accord with the fundamental goals of NEPA. So much of the early streamlining debatecentered almost exclusively on the goal of expedited reviews. **Throughtrial and error, innovation, testing, and early lessons learned, much of thetransportation community has adopted a new way of thinking to get beyond theusual environmental process bottlenecks.**

For example, we needstrategies that look beyond site-specific replacement of low-value wetlands toreward projects that preserve or enhance high-value wetlands off-site. These are the kinds of solutions thattransportation and environmental agencies should strive for withoutcompromising the integrity of their mission or service to their customers. But to get from here to there requiresadopting a new mindset. Fortransportation sponsors this means earning the right to be stewards of theenvironment on behalf of an environmental agency. For Federal agencies this means accepting a fresh view of Federalismand acknowledging that transportation sponsors can expedite projects in waysthat benefit communities and the environment. 
The ProductsRe-Engineering the Process
FHWA/FTA's advocacy of an open partnership and acoalition-based, information sharing process to achieve streamlining isbeginning to pay off. FHWA and FTA havebeen working through headquarters, field offices, and with other agencies toadvance the National MOU through an action plan agreed upon by the DOT andFederal review and permitting agencies.

**Federal interagency MOU***.* In July 1999, DOTentered into an agreement with six Federal agencies on highway and transitstreamlining that sets forth the Federal agencies' collective goals forstreamlining: reducing delays and protecting the environment. The Federal interagency MOU is provided onthe following page. 

**NATIONAL MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING July 1999**

Section 1309 of theTransportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) calls for a coordinatedenvironmental review process to expedite Federal highway and transitprojects. The agencies**[1]**below agree to streamline environmental review processes in accordance withTEA-21 and other relevant environmental statutes in ways that reinforce ourFederal responsibility to protect the environment. To meet this commitment, we agree to: 

Reduce Project Delays 
- Identify solutions such as programmatic agreements to reduce unnecessary project delays, including delays caused by staffing constraints, and to amend rules and policies where needed without compromising environmental quality. 
- Apply the necessary technical and financial resources to identify and resolve issues early, especially on projects that are not typical or have potential to create the most damaging impacts to the environment. 
- Direct field organizations to work collaboratively to develop processes that assure the timely, cost-effective development of sound transportation plans and projects. 
- Emphasize the use of concurrent review of plans and projects. 
- Develop national procedures for dispute resolution and encourage the use of appropriate mechanisms and organizations. 
- Provide timely review and constructive comments on transportation proposals focusing additional information requests on information, which is needed to reach an informed decision. 
- Support and encourage field offices to explore flexible streamlining opportunities on their own and with state transportation and environmental partners including developing MOUs to lay out mutual expectations, funding agreements in support of streamlining, and concurrent review within cooperatively determined time frames. One example might be pilot projects to investigate new methodologies that lead to a single public interest decision to satisfy multiple agency requirements. 
- Establish, with stakeholder input, goals, performance measures, and benchmarks to evaluate transportation and environmental decision-making 

Protect and EnhanceEnvironmental Quality 
- Work with project sponsors to ensure that they comply fully with all applicable environmental laws, regulations, and policies, and address fully any information needs associated with such statutes by providing complete and high quality information within the relevant timeframes. 
- Seek to identify information needs early so the relevant environmental statutes can be addressed fully. 
- Recognize effective local or regional coordination processes that are currently underway, build upon and publicize successful practices, and promote creative solutions and innovative methods that reduce economic and environmental costs. 
- Assess alternative actions and identify the action that is in the best overall public interest.
- Ensure broad stakeholder involvement, including nontraditional stakeholders, as well as underserved and underrepresented constituencies, and public participation throughout the environmental review process
- We will strive to ensure that transportation projects are protective of and more compatible with the natural and human environment and we commit to continuously improve and streamline the processes used to develop those projects.

**Federal interagency committee, action plan, and workshops***.* An interagencycommittee meets regularly to discuss coordination and to advance streamliningactions. The table below identifies theaction plan developed by the Federal interagency committee. Emphasis is placed on training and providingresources and technical assistance to field staff. FHWA held a national training workshop for all involved Federalagencies in November 2000 in St. Louis, Missouri. Representatives from the White House Council on EnvironmentalQuality (CEQ), state DOTs, and Congressional staff also participated. Participants felt the workshop served tonarrow the gap between Federal agency headquarters' and field offices'perceptions and expectations about the Federal role in streamlining. 
Federal Agency Action Plan for Environmental Streamlining- Advance the use of existing Federal agency powers for administrative delegation of authorities to states and pilot projects to promote expedited reviews;
- Encourage the use of flexible mitigation approaches, such as wetland banking and habitat banking, or compensation strategies that promote investment in environmentally sensitive geographic regions, in lieu of project site-specific mitigation only;
- Maximize financial and staff resources through cross-training, web site linkages, and interagency personnel agreements;
- Establish performance-evaluation measures, including the development of timeframes at the project level and opinion surveys of environmental and transportation professionals; and,
- Develop and implement a dispute resolution system.

**Interagency training***.* FHWA is cooperating with each of the resource agencies andother DOT administrations to conduct agency-specific training workshops forfield staff. The goal is to advance streamlining by delving into the issues anddelays most frequently attributed to individual agencies. These workshopspromote uniform practices among agency field staff and serve to clarify andupdate guidance relevant to streamlining. FHWA developed and conducted an issue-oriented, problem-solving workshopfor USACE as part of its efforts to foster the streamlining capabilities ofFederal review agencies. The USACEworkshop was held in September 2001. Others are planned in 2002 with Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), andthe U.S. Coast Guard. 

**Programmaticagreements and tools***.* FHWA and FTAare working with AASHTO and resource agencies to update existing agreements andexplore how further use of programmatic agreements can expedite specificregulatory requirements. Suchagreements may delegate certain responsibilities to state agencies. Most of the agreements address the historicpreservation, wetlands, endangered species, and Section 4(f) issues that werecited as the most common sources of delay. A template with guidance for negotiating a programmatic agreement withthe FWS to expedite Endangered Species Act (ESA) reviews has been developed.

**Guidance on funding Federal activities that expedite reviews*.*** Working with an interagency group, FHWA hasdrafted guidance on TEA-21's provision allowing state DOTs to use highway fundsto reimburse Federal agencies for activities beyond what is normally requiredto expedite environmental reviews. FHWAis finalizing guidance that underscores the linkage of such reimbursementarrangements to expedited reviews. 

**Other guidance issued by DOT:**
- FHWA's Prior Concurrence and Legal Sufficiency Memo to the field clarifies which projects must have headquarters' approval of NEPA documents. (October 2001)
- FHWA/U.S. Coast Guard memo regarding streamlining the bridge permitting process. (December 2001)
- FHWA's stewardship oversight memorandum. (September 2001)
- FHWA/FTA Memorandum on Implementing TEA-21 planning provisions. (February 2001)
- FHWA/FTA Revised Guidance for Implementing the March 1999 Circuit Court Decision Affecting Transportation Conformity. (January 2002)
- FTA policy granting proposed New Starts projects pre-award authority for acquisition of property upon the completion of NEPA. (January 2002)
- FTA policy granting proposed New Starts projects pre-award authority to initiate NEPA upon Federal approval of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. (January 2002)

**FHWA/FTA proposed NEPA and planning rules.**In May 2000, FHWA/FTA issued two proposed rules on planning and NEPA. These proposals were intended to promoteearlier consideration of the environment during the transportation-planningphase and to thereby streamline the project-level environmental reviewphase. Highway organizations werehighly critical and asserted that the Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs)added complexity to the process rather than simplifying it. Environmental organizations were alsocritical, although for opposing reasons. The NPRMs did not dictate timeframes for other Federal agency actions ora process for arbitration of conflicts due to a lack of DOT authority overother agencies and a concern that "one-size-fits-all" approaches could limitflexibility. Discussions continue onhow to proceed.
Institutionalizing Dispute Resolution
**Proposed dispute resolution procedures***.* FHWA has engagedthe Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (IECR), an independentFederal agency, in cooperation with Federal agencies and state DOTs, to helpdraft national procedures on dispute resolution and conflict management. These will establish standard operatingprocedures for the implementation of Section 1309(c) of TEA-21 calling fordispute resolution procedures. Theprocedures will be finalized in 2002.

**Guidance for managing conflict during the projectdevelopment process.** Draftguidance for Federal agencies, prepared by FHWA with IECR, is being finalized.Planned for 2002-2003 is a series of regional workshops convening parties toexplore the hands-on application of dispute resolution and conflict managementduring the environmental review and permitting processes. Dispute resolution and conflict managementcan significantly reduce the number of unresolved problems that crop up at theend of the process.

**Roster of transportation dispute resolution facilitators***.*Over40 qualified dispute resolution specialists who can serve as neutral facilitatorsto expedite problem solving on controversial transportation projects areavailable to states or project sponsors through the IECR roster program. Qualified individuals are required to haveexperience with NEPA and transportation projects and be trained disputespecialists. In addition, they haveattended environmental streamlining training sponsored by FHWA. FHWA is providing funding to the IECR forroster management. Facilitators enterinto contracts with project sponsors on a case-by-case basis.
Measuring Performance
**Measuring improvement in environmental streamlining allows** us to assess the success of current efforts and to refinestrategies and actions when needed. Several national initiatives are underway to study and measure the performanceof environmental streamlining:
- Baseline studies have been completed to measure the length of time for routine and complex environmental actions. In 2001, FHWA conducted research on the time it takes to complete a Federal-aid highway or bridge project for use by the public. The results provide a valid and reasonable baseline against which to evaluate future environmental streamlining efforts and to establish target timeframes for reducing delays. 
- FHWA is monitoring EPA's ratings of environmental documents for highway projects. EPA is required by law to evaluate Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). The EPA rating reflects EPA staff's judgment of how well the environmental impacts are addressed. The ratings range from Environmentally Unacceptable (EU) to Environmentally Objectionable (EO) to Environmental Concerns (EC) to Lack of Objection (LO). One of FHWA's performance goals is to increase our "grade point" average as reflected by EPA ratings. We believe that this has improved as a result of our streamlining efforts that focus on early coordination
-  During the last six years, EPA's ratings of FTA's Draft EISs (DEIS) and Final EISs (FEIS) have averaged approximately 3.6, based on the scale used in the chart below. During this time transit documents received an EPA rating of LO 90 percent of the time and no FTA document received EPA's lowest rating of EU. 
-  A perception survey, currently underway by the Gallup Organization, is asking transportation and environmental practitioners to assess each other's implementation of streamlining. FHWA will work with other Federal agencies to track performance over time, analyze results, and pinpoint problem areas for management attention. 
- In 2002, FHWA is instituting an environmental document tracking system timeframe for Categorical Exclusions (CE), Environmental Assessments (EA), and EISs.
- FTA uses an EIS tracking system to monitor the progress of EISs. 

Several Transportation Research Board NCHRP studies alsoexamine streamlining and involve FHWA. In conjunction with AASHTO, panels looked at the length of time it takesto process routine projects, evaluated the implementation of AASHTOstreamlining pilot projects, and suggested potential improvements for projectdevelopment reviews. 
Catalyzing Change Through Best Practices
**State Initiatives/Pilot projects***.* DOT is supportingand tracking a number of innovative state initiatives and pilot projects,including:
- A group of proposed projects in response to AASHTO's call for pilots. FHWA is giving technical assistance to the pilot projects, and results will be publicized as national examples.
-   A number of high priority state projects. FHWA and FTA are working with a number ofstates on pilot projects, including Interstate 69 in Texas, U.S. Route 93 inMontana, Interstate 93 in New Hampshire, Interstate 405 in Washington, andInterstate 70 in Colorado.
- Innovative state approaches. FHWA is working with a number of states on innovative approaches, including Florida's integrated transportation decision-making process, Washington's streamlining permitting bill, Ohio's Programmatic Section 4(f), and the Mid-Atlantic Transportation and Environment Streamlining Process Framework, to cite just a few. 

These and all states'efforts are catalogued on FHWA's web site (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/strmlng/index.htm).

**Inventory of Best Practices***.* Along withsupporting state initiatives and pilot projects, DOT is also cataloging andsharing best practices across the country.
- DOT has sponsored peer reviews among state DOTs to exchange practices that integrate planning and the environmental review process. 
- FHWA maintains and continuously updates its environmental streamlining web site ( http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/strmlng/index.htm ). 
- CD-ROMs of training sessions and workshop notebooks are often distributed to assist those staff not able to attend in person.
- FHWA distributes a monthly "Successes in Streamlining" newsletter to nearly 1,000 customers.
- FHWA's "Re:NEPA" web site. The "Re:NEPA" web site allows for an interactive exchange among interested parties on a number of environmental topics. The latest technical reports, draft guidance, and streamlining works in progress can be found here: ( http://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov/ReNepa/ReNepa.nsf/home ).
Next Steps
FHWA and FTA will continue to work in partnership withFederal resource agencies and states to expedite environmental reviews andclearances for all surface transportation projects while improvingenvironmental stewardship. Emphasiswill continue to be placed on innovation and the maximum use of administrativeauthority to advance timely and efficient project reviews and partnerships withother Federal executives in order to ensure that environmental commitments arefair, balanced, and respectful of the nation's critical transportation needs,especially those addressing safety, congestion, and mobility.

Initial streamlining efforts lay a foundation foraccelerated streamlining results. Executive level leadership, core management,and line supervisors' acceptance of streamlining responsibility among allFederal agencies are essential to reducing delays without compromisingenvironmental agencies' missions. Streamlining can be accelerated by:
- Placing more emphasis on national programmatic approaches and delegation of environmental authority on low-risk activities.
- Encouraging states and Federal agencies to leverage staff and financial resources through administrative and technological efficiencies (e.g., inter-agency guidance, cross-training, common databases, enhanced communication, and information sharing) in order to overcome inconsistent interpretations of requirements.
- Establishing a shared responsibility for achieving streamlining at the Federal and state levels, including the development and evaluation of timeframes for project reviews.
- Fostering distinct Federal agency roles and responsibilities in environmental streamlining by developing strong executive leadership throughout all of the Federal agencies.

In the coming year,DOT environmental streamlining efforts will be focused as described below: 

**Federal Agency Action Plan for Environmental Streamlining**
- Use existing Federal agency powers for administrative delegation of authorities to states and pilot projects to promote expedited reviews .                   -  2002 Focus:      - Develop national templates for regional general permits, NEPA/404 mergers, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Section 106 delegations/testing of alternative procedures, Section 4(f) programmatic agreements, and ESA programmatic agreements.
    - Conduct at least one Executive Session. 
- Use flexible mitigation approaches, such as wetland and habitat banking or compensation strategies that promote investment in environmentally sensitive geographic regions, in lieu of project site-specific mitigation only .                   -  2002 Focus:      - Test watershed-based approaches, environmental stewardship implementation/oversight, and innovative mitigation pilots.
    - Identify environmental research priorities that support flexible mitigation. 
- Maximize financial and staff resources through cross-training, issue clarification, common databases, web site  linkages, and interagency personnel agreements.    -  2002 Focus:      - Finalize guidance on agency funded positions, review existing agreements to underscore linkage to expedited reviews, develop web-based training, identify multi-year interagency training agenda, and assist with the development of AASHTO's Center for Environmental Excellence.
    - Work with CEQ to facilitate interagency guidance and clarification on key topics (e.g. secondary/cumulative impacts).
    - Sponsor field workshops with FHWA.
    - Promote development of shared databases, such as statewide GIS maps of environmental resources, tribal interests, and transportation facilities. 
- Establish performance evaluation measures, including the development of timeframes at the project level .                   -  2002 Focus:      - Define streamlining performance evaluation tracking measures for each resource agency.
    - Assess and develop general timeframes for project reviews. 
- Develop and implement a dispute resolution system .                   -  2002 Focus:      - Promote NEPA conflict management through regional interagency facilitated workshops.
    - Provide technical assistance to field offices using the transportation roster and services of the IECR.
    - Finalize national procedures for dispute resolution. 

 [1]  This MOUwas signed by seven Federal agencies in July 1999, including DOT, USACE,Department of Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, Department ofCommerce, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and Department ofAgriculture.
FHWA Home |HEP Home |Links |Privacy Statement |FeedbackUnited States Department of Transportation - **Federal Highway Administration** |